How stupid do you have to be to think you can try to take down official government sites? FBI, justice dept, city and state etc. Predna stories have just dropped to second place for entertaining stories. We're going to need a lot more popcorn!

Yes, Trump is an egotistical blowhard that blurts out something stupid every time he opens his mouth. His past is a nightmare from all the investors and contractors he has cheated and ruined right up to the leaked tapes bragging about sexual assaults. Hillary is no better with decades of scandals that may even include conspiracy to murder. Time was when the parties would vet their candidates and if reporters discovered so much as a marital affair they would drop out of the race.

Both are easy targets for negative posts. I myself have posted scathing comments on Facebook and surprisingly most of the replies are defending Trump. These are not random trolls, most are people that I know.

What I was referring to is the blatant AstroTurfing that is everywhere. It make you wonder if Hillary has an organized social media program like Vladimir Putin. Trump has pulled some stupid shit but he is being blamed for things he couldn't possibly be responsible for. People bitching that he is the reason they are getting they are getting scam robo calls? It's either AstroTurfing or his supporters are as stupid as he is. There was a comment on this site a few says ago that included "make America grate again" among some seriously bad grammar and misspellings.

Patents are often written in a wording to deliberately make them sound like so much more than they really are. It's the old "If you if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". An A/V switch was either already patented or was just too obvious to even merit one. This is how bad patents get approved. It doesn't matter how it's worded just look at the diagram. IT IS AN A/V SWITCH. I don't care if the description claims it changes water into wine, that's all it is! It gives you 3 inputs: broadcast, cable and satellite. 2 outputs, one specified RF (in other words the old channel 3/4 option) and another unspecified output that given when this patent was issued would have to be RCA connections. The remote is nothing special. I have a 25 year old box with 6 inputs and a wireless remote. That does not mean anything automated. Switching between these inputs will usually put you in the middle of another program. The sites they are suing are doing nothing more than any TV channel. When one program completes, they start another. When you click a link to a news site for a story it might continue by first playing other related videos if there are any but then completely unrelated videos will continue to come up. YouTube has this autoplay option by default that you can turn off. This is a trolling nuisance suit that they are hoping that companies will pay them off just a little less than the legal cost to defend something even something this meritless. Even by trolling standards this one is a huge stretch. Can they bring this marvelous invention to court and demonstrate that it does anything similar to how they claim the Times is infringing on it?

AstroTurf much? I don't like either candidate so just don't accuse me for sticking up for either of those worthless criminals. It's just that everywhere I've been on the web lately the Trump bashers are out in force. There are comments everywhere, even when there is nothing remotely related to politics. I was just on a site to look up and comment on spam calls and there was a long string of comments there blaming him for how ineffective the do not call law is. That was passed in 2003, so how exactly is that his fault?

I hope your settlement was worth even more attention to how full of shit you are. You succeeded in getting one article taken down and ridiculously were paid off. This article by far is is not alone in calling bullshit on your claim. A Google search for "Ayyadurai invented email" finds the overwhelming results including Wikipedia are about what a fraud you are. Just try bringing another suit. What would be great if all these news organizations would pool resources and SLAPP your sorry ass. I don't even believe the money is what you were after. You just want glory and a place in history for your false claims. If you had only tried to get credit for a few innovations to an already existing technology few would have disputed it.

It's like Al Gore being mocked for something he did not actually say. The actual quote was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" He actually did push important legislation that helped pave the way for it. He was one of the most technologically knowledgeable congressman of his day. He also should get credit for his work in making satellite dishes legal and calling programmers to task for demanding higher rates for subscriptions when scrambling began. Just as it is today, cable had funneled a lot of money into lobbying and it took real balls to force competition.

Yeah, but this isn't about just adding "on a computer" or "on the internet" to a patent. In this case this is not even close to what this patent was about. They are suing that news videos a set to continue auto playing until you stop them. This is the same as many thousands of other sites. This is an 80's era manual A/V switch. Changing between broadcast and satellite will often put you on a show already in progress. If they win this they can carry it one step further and sue hundreds of networks. If you turn on a station they will continue to start another program as each one completes until you turn off the TV.

That would be stupid. But wait! No more stupid than this. How anybody could connect this to auto playing videos is beyond me. It's an input selector MANUALLY controlled. Nothing automatic about it. In case you haven't noticed, YouTube has an auto play next video unless you disable it. I guess they don't have the balls to sue a wealthy company like this. Google's lawyers wipe their asses with more logical suits than this one.

That pretty much describes every A/V selector I have ever owned since the 80's. Have they sued Radio Shack? That doesn't even show a device for changing videos, only the input. Only in east Texas district would this ever get beyond the laugh test. I guess those Texans don't have much of a sense of humor!

Cop shows present facial recognition as this infallible technique that police can enter a photo into a database and identify anyone in seconds nearly every time. There is a more than likely chance that a lot of people have relatives who resemble them closely enough to get a false ID. It has happened in eyewitness ID and it most certainly with this flawed technology.